Otisville, NY – Imprisoned Rabbi Sues Over Space for Prayer Near Toilet

He is a Jew and we are in a bitter Gulus. Masiach needs to come now!

you do the crime
you do the time
but with the conditions of the us government

and if the bop is not complying with the conditions they are criminals like the prisoners and should be prosecuted

It doesn’t matter if he is guilty or not PIDYON SHEVUYIM and pity for the arrested, is still the order of the TORAH !

These people are self hating jews, you would like hashem to be moichel you on your avairus on yoim kippur like you judge someone else? also 2 wrongs don’t make 1 right. If someone steels r’l doesnt mean he can and is allowed to daven in an open toilet. but instead of going against these anti-semites , you go after your brothers. shame on you.

Talk about misplaced Rachmonus. I certainly do feel sorry for the family but I’m also sorry; you gotta do the time. I’ts awful how many frum zitzers there are and they are all demanding in the name of religion!! THAT’S probably why the judge is harsh. If you’re going to dress the part, act the part; otherwise, be sure you’ll be treated worse than anyone else.

Another point in view of this [two-fold] tragedy. (also from the viewpoint of the victims of the Scheme/s). In an Israeli court and prison(yo the tzionem zenen vus zay zenen) the length of sentence and conditions of incarceration would never be as harsh and heartless.

RE- 7 YEARS TOO MUCH ? WHEN WILL THESE FRAUDS STOP? HOW MANY ‘FRUM ‘ PRISONERS ARE THERE NOW IN FEDERAL PRISONS ? A STIFF SENTENCE WILL BE A DETERENT FOR ALL. TSEDEK, TSEDEK TIRDOF !…CHAIM

bunch of self hating Jews!
self hating Americans!

In Europe there is no such thing as getting this many years for STEALING.

Stealing has a solution! PAY BACK DOUBLE TRIPLE OR 5 times the amount…

but distroying a Family like this. this is Absurd.

He would be better of living in Iran!

and to all of you smarta… its cool to talk when your undercover… comeon out… disclose your tax returns… your application for goverment assistance.. and lets see all youre stealings….

Moshe!
again many rabonim and askonim argued with him. they even sent his rebbe the Toldos AVrom Yitzchok Rebbe Shlita who came to visi him in prism (pefore the ottisvile jail) to convince him.

and 15 to 20 is no PB.

there was no Muser for 2 years. it was the feds who wired his computers at their first visit to his office 2 years before his arrest and he nebech thought that the case is over.

another point: when they first made the arrest they claimed $100 milion in theft. only later at the trial it was discovered that it was only $4 milion… but the damage was done and too many little details that was discovered during trial angered the judge.
yossi.

Very well said.. When guys like samet ruien heimisha elicha god loving family’s no one says anything,,nada nada,, its only after the facts when there is a oi vey nebach he is being imprisoned,,We should all cry beforhand,,like the chofets chaim once said in a case similar to this,,,” NOW YOUR CRYING? The crying should have been before it all started…Folks to cry after all the shtick was done,,,IS JUST TO LATE:

to anonymous
February 17, 2008 9:40 AM

Mr Samet Was never offerd 7 years
only a PB of 15 to 2o

Can you tell me which Rabonim and askonim advised him to go for a PB

not even the Munkatcher

did you know that one of the 10 People in the so called “samet group” was the “Musser” for the FBI and he was wired and recording for 2 years before samet’s arrest

It is news to you all that Anti Semitism is alive and well in the US and that more often than not religious Jews do not get justice?

How many of you remember McCain’s speech that the US is a Christian country and it needs a Christian President?

Think about it when you vote. If the current Crusades continue we will all suffer a lot more institutional Anti Semitism than we are already seeing.

(I am not saying that Obama is much better, maybe only a little bit less bad with regard to encouraging Anti Semitism).

did you know thath the judge published a book with Disparaging Statements about Jewish Founders

EVIDENCE OF RELIGIOUS BIAS AND DISCRIMINATION TOWARD JEWS, ESPECIALLY HASIDIC JEWS

Perhaps, I should say that the simple logical way to fully understand the mindset of Judge McMahon is to read her publications, observe her conduct and examine her statements and remarks in and outside the court. Some independent legal observers who have known or dealt with her have posted a lot of negative commentary on the internet about Judge McMahon. (See the Robbing room. htm.) She was rated as the second worst federal judge on an internet site called “Ten Federal Judges who must be impeached for Abuse of Power”. Judge McMahon is bent on abrogating the constitutional separation of Church-State. No judge in America has injected religion into the court rulings or proceedings more frequently than judge McMahon. And her strong Christian religious views make her insensitive and bias towards people of different faiths.

On the subject matter of bias and abuse of separation of Church-State by judge McMahon, I will demonstrate some instances of such conduct.

Disparaging Statements about Jewish Founders

It is well documented that the relationship between the Christians and the Jews has never been cordial for centuries. A lot of Christians bear resentment towards the Jews based on the beliefs that Jesus was crucified by the Jews. Because a lot of progress has been made in more recent years, there has been an improved relationship between the Christians and the Jews. But some still bear resentment.

According to Jewish belief, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are the founding fathers. They occupy an important place in Jewish history and existence. But among them, Jacob is the most revered. He is looked upon as the father of the Jewish people. In fact the name Israel is derived from Jacob.

Judge McMahon`s bias towards the Hasidic Jews is evidenced in her description of Jacob. In describing Jacob in her book she stated:

“Jacob always struck me as someone worthy of a kick in the pants, never mind a crack on the hip. Jacob was a liar, a cheat, a trickster, a cad, a coward, a thief and an ingrate. He was envious arrogant and crafty. He played favorites.”(Page 58)

If anyone ever described the prophet Mohammad (Peace be upon him) in this manner, the entire Middle East would be engulfed with fire demanding an apology. Also if a non-Christian described Christ in that manner the entire Christian community would rise up and demand an apology.

Comparison of Remarks towards Jews and Non –Jews

Another way to see Judge McMahon`s bias towards Jews is to evaluate her remarks during sentencing of a Jewish defendant, with that of a non-Jewish defendant she named Larry in her book, (Page 60). In the case of a Jewish defendant convicted of fraud, described in her book, she avoided revealing his true identity. (Page 39). But actually his true name is Yuda Wiess and he is a co-defendant of Samet.

During the sentencing of Yuda Wiess, his attorney pleaded with Judge McMahon for the lowest possible sentence, contending that:

“. . . The defendant was a fundamentally good person who had fallen under the influence of evil people because his father died when he was very young. ‘You cannot imagine how important the guidance of a father is in this community.’ The lawyer exhorted.” (Page 39)

In responding to the lawyer’s plea for mercy Judge McMahon stated:

“ . . . I was not impressed with argument . . . I reminded the lawyer, ‘but he went to school, and there he learned what his father knew, and his father`s father, and his father`s father`s father before that. He learned Talmud and Mishnah, and above all he learned Torah, the law of Sinai, which says in no uncertain terms NO STEALING. He should have listened to Moses and the prophets. He did not, and today he pays the price.”(Page 39)

Judge McMahon appeared very sympathetic towards the non-Jewish defendant she called Larry in her book. (Page 60) Larry was convicted for robbing a Postal truck.

Judge McMahon stated:

“I hated to do it, but I gave him eighteen months in the joint – the minimum sentence, but enough to put quite a crimp in a young man’s life. Many young men Larry’s age have been hopelessly ruined by eighteen months behind bars.”

It should be noted that similarities exist between Larry and Weiss. Both appear to be fundamentally two young men. They were both influenced by bad crowds. Weiss’ lawyer stated during sentencing:

“. . . The defendant was fundamentally a good person who had fallen under the influence of evil people. . .” (Page 39)

Judge McMahon acknowledged this fact in her remarks stating:

“. . . He played a minor role in a massive fraud scheme involving members of his community.” (Id.)

Also during the sentencing of Samet, who is Weiss’ co-defendant, Judge McMahon commented:

“I hold you accountable for . . . Yuda Weiss . . .” (ST 117)

In light of the similarities of these two defendants, one would expect an equal sensitivity and sympathy towards them by Judge McMahon. But that was not the case. The judge displayed bias towards the Jewish defendant and sympathy towards Larry. Despite the fact that Weiss plays a minor role in his case and Larry was a major player in his case. More so, Larry’s case was a violent case and Weiss’ case was a white collar case.

REMARKS TOWARDS SAMET AND MULDOON

Judge McMahon demonstrated hatred and bias towards Jews in an unimaginable way. This is evident in the way she applied the federal rules of evidence, including the weight she accorded to both mitigating and aggravating factors. A case in point to demonstrate these facts is the case of a woman called Lorna Muldoon in Judge McMahon’s book.

A close analysis and comparison of that case with that of Samet’s case will prove her bias and hatred towards Jews. In Lorna’s case, she was convicted of drug dealing, she had prior convictions and she also has a daughter. She was facing a lengthy sentence in federal prison. Before her sentencing, her lawyer, minister and Director of a drug rehab, sent letters to Judge McMahon pleading for mercy in the form of a downward departure. See (Page 87-89)

During the sentencing of Lorna, Judge McMahon stated that:

“. . . It hit me – if Lorna went to jail, her daughter was going to foster care. There was no one else to care for her. Lorna didn’t know her right hand from her left, but the child was one of the ‘many animals’ who would suffer if her mother received the richly deserved punishment. I couldn’t bring myself to impose that collateral damage. So I granted the downward departure motion and sent Lorna to rehab.” (Page 88)

In Samet’s case he was convicted of a white collar crime (fraud). He has no prior convictions. Samet has eleven children; some of them were as young as 3 years old at the time of his arrest. Before Samet’s sentencing, his lawyer, relatives and neighbors sent letters to Judge McMahon explaining the negative impact his incarceration will have on his eleven children. They pleaded to Judge McMahon to grant Samet a downward departure.

Judge McMahon, out of hatred and bias towards Jewish defendants, denied the motion and the pleas, stating:

“ . . . I decline to do so, both because the family circumstances here are not extra-ordinary in any meaningful way – that is to say, they are simply and solely the common collateral damage of imprisonment — . . .” (ST 115.)
Unfounded Claims

Mr. Samet presented documentary evidence as well as witnesses at trial and sentencing, to attest to all the positive impact Mr. Samet had on the lives of his wife, children, and members of his community. Also included were the charitable donations and other good deeds for the poor by Mr. Samet.

Mr. Samet’s lawyer relied on these positive qualities of Samet to argue that a lengthy incarceration of him would have a devastating impact on the lives of these people. The lawyer pleaded for a lenient sentence to Judge McMahon, who was preconceived to hand down a cruel and unusual punishment to Mr. Samet. This is evident from her remark:

“All that talk about the wonderful impact that Mr. Samet has on the lives of his children rings somewhat hollow to me. . .” (ST 114)

“I thus have every confidence that Mrs. Samet and her children will be cared for by family, friends and neighbors in the years to come.”

Judge McMahon’s Final Comments

In the final analysis, Judge McMahon’s comments towards Mr. Samet and of Ms. Muldoon described in Judge McMahon’s book, showed a sharp contrast. These two defendants were convicted of two different types of offenses. Mr. Samet was convicted of fraud, whereas, Ms. Muldoon was convicted of drug offenses and both were facing lengthy sentences. Ms. Muldoon has one child and Mr. Samet has eleven children. Judge McMahon apparently was not moved by the plight of Mr. Samet’s wife and eleven children. In fact, she scorned Mr. Samet and used the word “collateral damage” to describe the hardship that his children would suffer as a result of his incarceration. Judge McMahon ignored the fact that Samet’s wife and eleven children are in very unusual circumstances. Samet was the sole provider for the family and it will be extremely difficult for the wife to endure the sole responsibility for all eleven children by herself. Samet’s family situation is very extraordinary and it is believed, based on research, that he is the first federal offender that would be separated from a wife and eleven children.

In contrast, Judge McMahon expressed grief about the suffering faced by Ms. Muldoon’s only daughter. She showed extra sensitivity and sympathy towards the little girl and went an extra length to see that the girl does not become a collateral damage. As a result of her sympathy for Ms. Muldoon’s daughter, she sentenced her to rehab, but sentenced Mr. Samet to 27 years and 3 months behind bars. Ms. Muldoon is a Christian, and Mr. Samet is an Orthodox Hasidic Jew. That explains the disparity in the sentence.

Judge McMahon has made a lot of comments and conclusions that are not supported by the evidence. Her statements that Samet’s wife and eleven children will be cared for have not materialized. Her assumption was wrong. Samet’s wife and eleven children have experienced an extraordinary hardship which is not fully expressed in this publication.

As it was customary, Judge McMahon discussed other reasons why Samet should not receive a downward departure. It is unquestionable that the reasons cited were nothing but a ploy to cover all appearances of bias and hatred towards Jewish defendants. Every reasonable observer could easily see that Samet’s race and religion were the basis for denial of a downward departure. See more explanations of this fact on (Page 61), in “Cover-Ups by Judge McMahon”.

MISINTERPRETATION AND MISQUOTING OF THE SCRIPTURES

Judge McMahon’s injection of her religious views into the courtroom proceedings is compound by her misinterpretation and misquoting of the Torah. It is regrettable and stunning that she intentionally misinterpreted and misquoted a well articulated, clear message, of the scriptures for her bias motives.

For instance, she cited a scripture from the Book of Deuteronomy, Chapter 24:7, which states:

“ If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Yisrael and deals with him as a slave or sells him; then that thief should die ; and that should put evil away from among you.” (Source the Jerusalem Bible).

The exact citation of the scripture by Judge McMahon as quoted in Samet`s sentencing, reads:

“In the law of Moses, it states ‘if anyone should be found stealing his brethren of the children of Israel and shall make merchandise of him, then that thief shall die; so shall remove the evil from the midst.” (ST 117)

Judge McMahon went on to add:

“You have stolen ten of your brothers . . . . (ST 117).

These remarks, having been misinterpreted and misquoted by Judge McMahon, produced the same sound bites accustomed to religious courts or Islamic courts, where Sharia law is applied. (This has also taken place with many other scriptures she quoted). The language and meaning of this particular scriptural passage is explicitly clear. The scripture succinctly and unambiguously stated that “stealing a fellow Jew and using him as a slave or selling him as a slave is an offense punishable by death.

Judge McMahon`s citation of this passage in a fraud sentencing case is flatly wrong and unacceptable for various reasons:
(1) The scripture has no place in American Civil or Criminal Courts.

(2) Samet was not charged for stealing another person and subjecting him to involuntary servitude, or selling him as a slave and there wasn`t a scintilla of evidence produced at trial that he engaged in such conduct.

(3) There was not a shred of evidence or suggestion at the trial, and in any or all proceedings, that Samet forced or coerced any of his co-defendants to participate in illegal activities.
The citation and distortion of this particular scriptural passage was a ploy to vent her anger and hatred toward Jews, especially Hasidic Jews. Judge McMahon commented that “she holds Samet accountable for all his co-defendant`s. (ST 117). She also commented about Samet`s co-defendant`s mothers weeping in the courtroom like “Rachel weeping for her children”. (ST 117). This is another passage from the Bible (Jeremiah 31:14).

Justice Denied

In light of these comments, every one would expect Judge McMahon during the sentencing of Samet`s co-defendant to temper justice with mercy by giving them the lowest possible sentences. But that was far from the case. Her hatred and bias towards Jews, especially Hasidic Jews, overshadowed her sense of compassion, fairness and equity. This is pure hypocrisy. She denied each of these young men justice. For more information on “Justice Denied,” see “Double Jeopardy or Hypocrisy” on (Page 55).

When does Samet have a chance of being let out?
He has served for about 4 years and two years pre-trial.
Does anybody know?

/ Mr. Samet is the only one who has paid in full, his approximate 3.5 million dollar restitution.
This chart makes it abundantly clear that Samet`s 27 year and 3 months is grossly distorted in comparison to the significantly low sentences imposed on defendants who are involved in notorious multi-billion dollar fraud cases…………..

ARE YOU A BIMBO? 300 months is just about the same as 27 years.

You must have went to a chasidishe yeshivah but take out a calculator and do the math.

The fact that he repaid his victims is only because he got caught. Nobody is saying he should get 27 years but stop making this story like the guy is some saint.

It seems that some people on this blog constantly protect people that steal and people who are child molestors and other great harms to our communities.

Feeling for another yid is great but it should come with limits.

When you have 1.3 million stolen from you and by a “frum” guy lets see how you talk and feel for these low lifes.

If Samet`s sentence was imposed with justice free from any religious influence, hatred and race bias, Samet would have received a lighter sentence, including a downward departure for the following reasons:

(1) Family Circumstances: Samet was the primary provider of “bread and butter” for his wife, eleven children and his elderly parents. This peculiar situation presented an extraordinary circumstance for a downward departure or a lighter sentence. Samet`s lawyer pleaded for a downward departure at his sentencing, arguing that a lengthy incarceration would cause a substantial hardship to his family. But the pleas fell on deaf ears of Judge McMahon;

(2) White Collar Crime: The nature of the alleged crime by Samet is another factor for a downward departure. It was a non-violent crime, the victims were less than ten and most of them were financial institutions and government agencies fully insured for such incidents. Only one individual victim was identified. This factor should have been an obvious ground for a downward departure;

(3) Pretrial Hardship: Samet spent over two years in the county jail while attending pre-trial hearings, trial and sentencing. Being in the county jail as opposed to being in a federal facility, presented extra hardships on the defendants, both physical and emotional. For instance, when Samet was in the county jail, he was housed with dangerous and violent inmates, locked in for 14 hours a day, was limited to two hours per week for visitations, was denied recreation for no reason, and prohibited from wearing his Yarmulke outside of his cell. Some federal courts have awarded downward departures to federal defendants based on the hardships they suffered while in county jails. Thus, Samet should have also received a downward departure because he spent two years of hardship in a county jail, longer than many others defendants who received such departures;

(4) Hasidic Orthodox Jew: Samet is a member of one of the most conservatives’ religious sects. His religion requires strict adherence to its faith, which includes certain rituals and observance. It is extremely difficult for Samet to faithfully and fully observe his religious obligation under a prison environment. In the past Hasidic Jewish inmates have brought federal complaints against the Bureau of Prisons for failing to provide them adequate access to fully exercise their strict religious obligations. The court in some of the cases granted those inmates downward departures, and some were ordered to be released immediately from prison Samet is required to eat only kosher foods that were approved by the CRC (“Central Rabbinical Congress”) , pray at certain hours of the day , eat certain meals in certain ceremonial holidays etc. Meeting these religious mandated requirements has been very difficult, if not impossible, for the Bureau of Prisons. Therefore, this should have been another reasonable ground for a downward departure for Samet;

(5) No Prior Record: Samet had always been a hard working tax paying citizen, a family oriented man, a well loved member of his community and has maintained a clean criminal record. Having no past criminal history and being a first time, non-violent offender, should have been used as grounds to award him a downward departure at sentencing. Instead, Samet was given a sentence that many would consider an equivalent to life imprisonment ;

(6) Generosity: At most, the evidence showed, only that most of the money alleged to have been part of the offense, went to charity. Samet has never lived a lavish lifestyle – he had no luxurious cars and he owns no jewelry, etc. Samet has great compassion for the needy and has spent a great deal of his lifetime assisting the poor and the underprivileged. These acts of generosity by Samet should have entitled him to a downward departure. Surprisingly , Judge McMahon used it against him;

(7) P.S.I. Recommendation: Pre-sentencing Investigation is where sentencing information is prepared as recommendation for the court, by a Probation Officer. A probation Officer`s recommendation has always received a great deal of consideration by the courts. This is due to the fact that courts trust the probation officers, being officers of the court, to provide truthful information based on their investigations. They review the entire evidence and investigate any special circumstances that could have bearings on the defendant`s length of incarceration and submit it to the court. In Samet`s case, the probation office recommended a lower sentence, at the low end of the guideline. However Judge McMahon ignored the recommendation and imposed the highest possible sentence;

(8) Restitution Payment: Most convicted defendants failed, refused or are unable to pay their restitution. Restitution payment is a way of compensating the victims of one`s crime. At Samet’s sentencing, Judge McMahon imposed Approximately 3.5 million dollars in restitution. That amount supposedly represented the total figure lost by the victims of his alleged crime. The judge also ordered the payment under certain conditions :

“That schedule requires you to make payment in monthly installments of 15 percent of your gross monthly income over the period of supervision, commencing thirty days after the date of your release from custody . “ (ST 122)

While Samet`s appeal was on-going, he made full restitution payment of approximately 3.5 million dollars. By satisfying this court-mandated obligation sooner than ordered, Samet should have received a new sentence with a downward departure, after the Circuit Court ordered that his sentence be considered on other grounds. See United States v. Mordechai Samet, Docket Number S8-01-CR-216 (CM). At least the victims of his alleged crime do not have to wait 27 years and 3 months before being compensated. Once again Judge McMahon used the act of paying restitution by Samet against him. And lastly;

(9) Rehabilitation: prisons and jails breed violence, hostility and high levels of stress. Being in a prison environment takes an extra effort to achieve positive goals. But despite the hostility of the environment, Samet has worked strenuously to develop various projects aimed at helping the government and its agencies in a variety of ways.

The chart below is a comparison of Samet`s 27 years and 3 month sentence, with that of sentences imposed in the major corporate scandals of recent years. This is only a selection of a few samples. There are many more that could have been compiled in this list, but there was no need because the list would be endless. The following cases are selected:

Defendant
Sentence
Restitution Ordered
Approximate Amount of Loss

E. Kirk Shelton (Cendant)
120 months
$ 3.27 billion
$ 3 billion

Walter A. Forbes (Cendant)
151 months
$ 3.275 billion
$ 3 billion

Joseph Rigas (Adelphia)
180 months
$ 1.5 billion
$ 3.1 billion

Timothy Rigas (Adelphia)
240 months
$ 1.5 billion
$ 3.1 billion

Jeffery Skilling
(Enron) 288 months
$ 45 million
$ 60 billion

Bernard Ebbers (WorldCom)
300 months
$ 40 million
$ 180 billion
1/
Mordechai Samet
327 months
$ 3.4 million 2/
$ 3.5 million

1/ Mr. Samet is the only Hasidic Jew, and possibly the only Jew, among the above similarly situated criminal defendants charged with fraud offenses.

2/ Mr. Samet is the only one who has paid in full, his approximate 3.5 million dollar restitution.
This chart makes it abundantly clear that Samet`s 27 year and 3 months is grossly distorted in comparison to the significantly low sentences imposed on defendants who are involved in notorious multi-billion dollar fraud cases

With all due respect, two wrongs don’t make a right. If the ribono shel olan allows for tshuva, who are we to judge. Just because someone is incarcerated does not mean that they should not be able to practice their religion.

IF YOU DO THE CRIME…YOU DO THE TIME…..ENOUGH WITH THESE CROOKS WHO INFLICT FINANCIAL RUIN ON OUR INNOCENT VICTUMS.HAVE NO RACMONIS ON THEM……..CHAIM

Yes 27 years is a lot…. but thats what u get when you cheppa with the US Govt.

27 YEARS??? Killers get less. Human life is obviously worth a lot less than $4m. Whether or not he’s guilty, there’s something wrong with the sentence here.

If the reasons he is in jail is true, did he pray he should succeed in his interesting money making deals in the bathroom or outside the bathroom?